CONCORD, N.H. (AP)--A group of libertarians announced a project Wednesday to get 20,000 Americans to move to New Hampshire and work to transform it into a ``free state'' with fewer laws, smaller government and greater liberty.

New Hampshire, whose motto is ``Live Free or Die,'' beat out nine other finalists for the Free State Project. Wyoming was runner-up in balloting conducted by about 5,000 members of the project around the country, vice president Elizabeth McKinstry said.

The 5,000 members have already pledged to move to the selected state, Free State Project organizers said. They hope to increase their numbers to 20,000 within two years and start transforming the state into a national model of liberty.

Some free-staters want to roll back restrictions on gambling, legalize medicinal marijuana and strengthen gun rights. But McKinstry said members also will work for charities and scholarship programs and help citizens get more involved in government.

``We won. That's fantastic,'' New Hampshire Libertarian Party chairman John Babiarz said of New Hampshire's selection. ``It's like New Hampshire has won a nationwide popularity contest based on its fundamentals.''

McKinstry of Ann Arbor, Mich., said New Hampshire won because it ``boasts the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., the leanest state government in the country, a citizen legislature, a healthy job market, and perhaps most important, local support for our movement.''

Project members also like the New Hampshire Constitution, which is seen as protecting the right to revolution. It reads: ``Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.''

The prospective new neighbors worry some New Hampshire residents.

``I like to be left alone by the government. But I need my trash picked up. I need police protection,'' said Dennis Pizzimenti, a lawyer in Concord.

Kathy Sullivan, state Democratic Party chairwoman, said project members ``can best be described as anarchists.''

Babiarz, a database consultant, said critics have it wrong: ``We're not here to invade or take over. We're here to restore the American dream.''

Doug Hillman, 39, said he is looking forward to leaving Graham, Ala., and moving his wife and four children somewhere near Littleton or Lancaster.

Hillman was most impressed with Republican Gov. Craig Benson's attitude toward the project--``Come on up, we'd love to have you,'' he said last summer.

``That led me to believe that libertarian thought and libertarianism is more accepted in New Hampshire,'' Hillman said.

Following second-place Wyoming in the voting, in order, were Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Vermont, Delaware, South Dakota and North Dakota.

· Free Staters hope to reinforce, enhance "sphere of individual liberty" in the Live Free or Die state

· Project has earned backing of NH governor, some state legislators

· Trickle of early movers expected to start this year

Aiming to preserve one bastion of freedom in the age of intrusive government, members of the rapidly growing Free State Project (FSP) have made a crucial decision. Voting via mail-in ballot after months of feisty debate, Free Staters chose New Hampshire as their future home.

Founded in 2001, the FSP's goal is to concentrate 20,000 liberty-oriented voters in one state. There, it is hoped, they will work to enhance and extend its existing culture of liberty. But until this week, it was anyone's guess whether that state would be

The membership election took place through the innovative Condorcet's Method, which allowed voters to rank all states and selected the state that received a higher ranking than each other state from a majority of voters. The runner-up state was Wyoming, which defeated every other state but fell to New Hampshire by the decisive margin of 55 per cent to 45 per cent.

"New Hampshire is clearly the consensus choice of Free Staters," commented FSP President and Yale political science professor Jason Sorens. "New Hampshire won a plurality of first-preference votes from every region of the country except the West."

"It's not difficult to see the reasons for New Hampshire's victory," adds Vice-President Elizabeth McKinstry, who is originally from New England. "The state boasts the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., the leanest state government in the country in terms of government spending and employment, a citizen legislature, a healthy job market, and perhaps most important, local support for our movement."

Over 100 New Hampshire residents have signed up for the Free State Project already, willing to move elsewhere but hoping to bring the movement to their home state. Governor Craig Benson even pledged to support the aims of the FSP, and several members of the legislature have signed up as members. [OVERà]

According to FSP Director of Member Services and Florida attorney Tim Condon, Free Staters should also be a boon for the economy of New Hampshire. "According to a member survey conducted concomitantly with the vote, 50% of our members have at least a Bachelor's degree, with 18% having done postgraduate work. Seventy-five per cent are under age 50, with 38% between the ages of 18 and 34. Those earning $60,000 or more per year constitute 44% of all members. The clear picture that emerges is one of a largely young, well educated, upwardly mobile group."

Several hurdles still face the movement, which currently has about 4,500 members pledged to migrate to New Hampshire. These challenges include recruiting another 15,500 members and continuing to build support for their cause within New Hampshire. If current recruitment trends continue, the group expects to reach 20,000 commitments by 2006, after which point members have five years in which to move.

But as Condon notes, "The member survey shows that 53% of members plan to move within three years, not waiting for the 20,000-member benchmark. Early movers should help recruitment by building a record of success."

As long as they don't unseat any Republicans at the national level and shift power to the RATS, I'm all for it. On that note I must say that I truely truely would prefer to have seen South Dakota as the winner.

You mean like the mess in inner cities, where drugs are illegal? And the mess in inner cities, where guns are also illegal? That mess?

If, hypothetically, the situation unfolds exactly as you have predicted, and the mess never comes, will you have the integrity to admit that you are wrong - in much the same way that the gun grabbers, who predicted time and time again that there would be blood in the streets if shall-issue were adopted, LACK the integrity to admit they were wrong?

I know a cop who works in an inner city area. He says (and swears that other cops quietly agree with him) that the only way to end drug *violence* is to legalize them. I must admit that his argument seems persuasive to me. The violence isn't over the drugs, but over the money they're worth. Legalizing them would lower the cost to acquire drugs to almost nothing and make dealing drugs pointless. No one would bother offering them to kids because it wouldn't be worth the effort. The violence would certainly drop.

As far as adults goes, if they want to dope themselves silly, fine. Less cattle in the herd, and more available good jobs for the rest of us (since the nitwits won't be able to get or keep them). It might sound heartless, but I firmly believe adults should be responsible for their own welfare--if they can't or won't do that, it shouldn't be society's problem. I walked the proverbial white line growing up, and I assure you I'm human and don't have an "S" on my chest--I simply had good parents and role models. What's stopping other people from taking charge of their kids like my parents (and my friends' parents) did?

I'm sure there will be an argument following this talking about the "resulting mess". Let me pre-empt that by asking for specifics: what specific consequences will arise as a result? I think it's safe to say that violence won't be a problem anymore. DWI? That's already illegal, and I'm pretty sure people are driving while stoned as it is. I doubt that'll change much. About the only real consequence I can see is that parents will have to be *parents* and not rely on the government to keep bad things away from their kids. But that's why I'm a conservative and not a Marxist, after all...

The strategy is to move 20,000 Libertarians to a small state so that they can form a majority government.

Uh huh.

The first part is "invasion."

Free, adult American citizens purchasing property or renting a residence in a free, American state, and then moving there, is "invasion"? Only by a very wacky definition of that word (according to which everyone "invades" every single city they move to).

The second part is "taking over."

Actually, you have it slightly wrong in your second part above. 20000 libertarians (assuming they get even close to that) will, I reckon, not be enough to form a majority government of New Hampshire.

That said, their goal is to elect people with like-minded views into office in that state. It is hyperbole, but not wholly inaccurate, to call that "taking over". It's what everyone attempts to do when they cast a ballot at the polls.

If, hypothetically, the situation unfolds exactly as you have predicted, and the mess never comes, will you have the integrity to admit that you are wrong...?

Why sure. You don't have to look to hard to find that drugs = mess. In the U.S., through history, throughout the world. Opium was legal at first, but people started noticing problems. Governments of all types throughout the world make drugs illegal. That is why you can't point out the jursidiction in which the libertarian drug legal utopia exists.

Maybe all these different Governments just do it for the love of power. Or maybe there are good reasons, having to do with the costs with which addicts burden society.

When you come across a wall, find out why it was built before you tear it down.

(And I note that you are not disagreeing that "medicinal marijuana" is just a back door ruse for legalization of marijuana).

Free, adult American citizens purchasing property or renting a residence in a free, American state, and then moving there, is "invasion"? Only by a very wacky definition of that word (according to which everyone "invades" every single city they move to).

Well, the plain fact is that the LP is organizing and effort aimed at gaining majority political influence in a small state. Its strategy is to get "their people" to move into said state, for that express purpose. That's close enough to "invasion" for me.

That said, their goal is to elect people with like-minded views into office in that state. It is hyperbole, but not wholly inaccurate, to call that "taking over". It's what everyone attempts to do when they cast a ballot at the polls.

If you look at the link provided above, the goals are to do all sorts of libertarian things, all of which require a strong majority. Which is pretty much "taking over," n'est pas?

20000 libertarians ... will not be enough to form a majority government of New Hampshire.

Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.

"He says (and swears that other cops quietly agree with him) that the only way to end drug *violence* is to legalize them."

Actually there is another way. Simple supply and demand theory shows that stopping the supply of drugs is impossible while there is such a high profit margin, even if the possible outcome of dealing includes jail time or death at the hands of your competition. However, extremely aggressive pursuit and incarceration of drug users (demand) will cause demand to disappear. Without demand, prices will fall and the profit margin disappears. No profit margin = no dealers.

One can't help but have visions of large choirs of Libertarian true believers clad in white pumping the air with their fists whilst singing a version of the Pet Shop Boys song "Go West". Go "North East" might be more appropriate.

The dream of setting up a utopia far from the craziness of current events is as old and pervasive as human civilization. This is simply a Libertarian version of the search for the Promised Land.

The article omits to mention, of course, the pre-eminent reason why NH and the runner-up states were chosen; they all have relatively small populations which is a prerequisite for any Libertarian invasion. 20,000 Libertarians aren't going to do diddly squat in a state the size of NY or California, but in a small state they just may have an impact, although not necessarily for the better.

I nominate NH for some sort of bravery and public service award. By acting as a Libertarian "sink" they are taking the loonies out of our hair and concentrating them all in one place. That lets the rest of us enjoy a little more sanity. Once they get 20,000 in there, they should erect a fence around the place so they can't get out again.

[moving in peacefully to affect voting outcomes] That's close enough to "invasion" for me.

Suit yourself. The term sure has lost 99.999% of its bite since the days of the Mongol Hordes....

If you look at the link provided above, the goals are to do all sorts of libertarian things, all of which require a strong majority. Which is pretty much "taking over," n'est pas?

Well I should explain. Certainly I agree that their goal is overt and it is to affect the body politic of some state by concentrating their votes so that their votes will be significant. Duh.

A big reason I object to a characterization of this as "taking over" is because nobody can "take over" anything in the United States. We have limited government here. If the libertarians or anyone else really were "taking over" some state or part of a state, it would be cause to send in the troops, IMHO. Whatever "libertarian things" they intend to do, will by definition have to be things that are already within the power of NH state officeholders to do, otherwise they won't (and can't) do them.

What is really going on is that they intend to vote for libertarian-leaning candidates in the hopes that they (the libertarian-leaning candidates) instead of others will be elected to office (not "take over", but elected to various offices - with finite terms of office, limited powers, checks and balances, etc.) What I'm saying is that you're generally right in a metaphorical kinda way that they're "trying to take over", but to say it this way is an invalid attempt to make it sound sinister.

There is nothing at all sinister about voting for certain people in the hopes that they'll do the sorts of things you like in office.

[20000 won't make majority] Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.

I agree that the whole thing is speculative (and I think they would too). Dunno if I'd call it "silly" but I, like you, have a hard time taking the whole thing seriously. However, for different reasons than you.

I just have a hard time buying the idea that all these 5000 pioneer libertarians will follow through on their "pledges" to move to NH. Who's gonna enforce it? They're libertarians for crying out loud. ;-)

That being said, in all fairness we should acknowledge that their goal was never to create a "majority" by getting 20000 libertarians into the state. That was your parody of their aim (which I debunked), not their actual aim. Their aim, as I understood it, was to get enough voters into some state that their swing vote would actually be significant and the (D)s and (R)s would have to pay attention to them, and (over the long term) the politics of the state would be shifted in their favor, hopefully causing a self-perpetuating process. Obviously the latter part is the "speculative" part, but it is feasible that 20000 libertarians transplanted into NH would have some effect anyway.

Ironically, I see this as a most out of character tip of the Libertarian hat to political reality.

It is an admission, if you will, that an organization which polls at or around the margin of error, is not going to make any impact nationally in the foreseeable future. Therefore, instead of having a small number of people dispersed nationally and having little impact on a large area (the country as a whole), why not concentrate them all in one place and have a big impact on a small area.

Nutty, naive and bound to failure, but there is a certain logic and realism there.

One year ago, there were a thousand FSP *porcupines* pledged to make the move once 20,000 are on board, about a year after membership was started. Today, not quite a year later, the number is near 5500, with the goal of 20k expected to be reached in approximately 113.7 weeks.

If then there are 10,000 porcupines a year from now, and 20,000 a year after that, how many more will have continued to join 5 years afterward, when the migration is to be accomplished, 5 years after that initial goal of 20K is reached. Success inspires imitation and convinces others to climb on the bandwagon as it acquires momentum and picks up speed. And I would be willing to bet that by the time of the 2008 election, there'll be a very sizable number of them in New Hampshire, just about the time the rest of the nation starts looking interestedly at the Granite State's primary voting.

Oh, and of the 5500 present porcupines, about 150 are already now resident in NH. Lets see how long it gets until that number doubles and there are 300 there....

-archy-/-

39
posted on 10/01/2003 2:39:41 PM PDT
by archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)

Well, to get to the roots of this, "invasion and taking over" were the words used by Mr. Babiarz.

I'm using the terms in the same loose, offhand manner he does, but in fact the LP is trying precisely to "invade and take over."

That being said, in all fairness we should acknowledge that their goal was never to create a "majority" by getting 20000 libertarians into the state.

That's where we disagree. The stated goals of the FSP are to effect a number of very significant changes. The bottom line is that the goal is to enact LP policy, which can only be accomplished by achieving a working majority.

As you noted, the 20,000 folks probably wouldn't do it, and I agree with you that their hopes would be to convince non-LPers to go along with them.

That might happen, but it probably won't, for the same reason the LP doesn't do well anywhere, at any level: they too often come across as whackjobs who do things like nominate blue guys for governor, or Rick Stanley for U.S. Senate, and whose platform seems to be to legalize drugs and ignore foreign threats.

"20000 libertarians ... will not be enough to form a majority government of New Hampshire."

Probably correct. Which makes the lofty claims for the FSP somewhat speculative -- even silly.

Nope, it makes your hyped up claims about the FSP lying speculation -- and more than silly.

Now, now -- Surely you cannot deny that the goal is to move people to NH and elect libertarians to do libertarian things --

Yep, I deny your lying hype. The goal is to restore constitutional government in NH..

invasion and taking over, in Mr. whatsisface's unfortunate words. As Dr.Frank pointed out, a majority can't be achieved with 20,000 folks, even in a small state like NH.

To which you replied, "probably correct".. - Honestly, r9-bippy, do you ever pay attention to anything before opening your mouth and removing all doubt? I think I can count on one finger the number of useful posts I've ever seen you make (and that one must have been an accident.

Don't shoot the messenger -- it's not my fault that libertarians haven't got the political sense God gave a dung beetle.

Note Republican Governor says "...we'd LOVE to have them." And the 'Crat Party Chairwoman calls them "anarchists!"

Curious if any LP members here on FR are moving up to NH any time soon?

We have more than 50 freepers on the Free Republic FSP *PorcuPing* list, not all of whom are pledged to make the move, though many are.

I'm one, though NH was originally one of my *opt-out* choices to which I wasn't required to relocate to. But my attitude toward the place has softened considerably over the last several months, largely in part due to the warm welcomes I've gotten from those already in the state, along with offers of assistance in finding housing, employment, and other help in relocating. There are some really decent folks in NH, Porcupines and otherwise.

-archy-/-

43
posted on 10/01/2003 2:53:44 PM PDT
by archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)

Actually there is another way. Simple supply and demand theory shows that stopping the supply of drugs is impossible while there is such a high profit margin, even if the possible outcome of dealing includes jail time or death at the hands of your competition. However, extremely aggressive pursuit and incarceration of drug users (demand) will cause demand to disappear. Without demand, prices will fall and the profit margin disappears. No profit margin = no dealers.

Which of course will never occur if any highly-placed figures in government are in fact profitting from the widespread sale and distribution of illegal drugs themselves.

In that case, they'd need both to maintain the current illegal status of those drugs, while preventing any really effective programs from shutting off either the supply, demand or distribution of them. Which is pretty much what's been going on for the last three decades.

-archy-/-

44
posted on 10/01/2003 2:59:03 PM PDT
by archy
(Keep in mind that the milk of human kindness comes from a beast that is both cannibal and a vampire.)

You don't have to look to hard to find that drugs = mess. In the U.S., through history, throughout the world. Opium was legal at first, but people started noticing problems.

Yes indeed! There were problems: Chinese immigrants were using opium, so opium was criminalized. And Irish drank, so there was prohibition. Then black jazz musicians started using pot in number, and we got the fine example of journalistic integrity, "Reefer Madness" and that was criminalized (with the assent of Du Pont which wanted military fabric to be made of nylon, not hemp). Then, inner city blacks started using cocaine, so that was out. And then counterculture hippies protesting the Viet Nam war were using psychedelics, and that was out. The banning of drugs has been based on the need to criminalize certain segments of population for more than a century. And it continues today: crack cocaine, favored by blacks, is somehow more illegal than regular cocaine, favored by whites, even though it's the same stuff. You, apparently, support such oppression.

Governments of all types throughout the world make drugs illegal. That is why you can't point out the jursidiction in which the libertarian drug legal utopia exists.

Yes, it's a tool of power and corruption the world over, which is why people in power keep it that way.

Maybe all these different Governments just do it for the love of power. Or maybe there are good reasons, having to do with the costs with which addicts burden society.

As opposed, say, to the costs which prohibition costs society? Hundreds of billions of dollars a year, lost rights, innocents killed in wrong-address no-knocks, the highest prison population in the world, etc? What about those costs?

When you come across a wall, find out why it was built before you tear it down.

Well, it's difficult to tell what point you're trying to make. So far as I can tell, you seem to disagree with me, but don't (can't?) really say why, and thus fall into your usual rut of name-calling. Typically -- prolonging your years-long string of useless posts. -r9bippy-

My only 'point' at post #26 was to refute your initial baseless trolling attack on the FSP at post #10.

As usual, you've attempted to make it into a teapot tempest. -- You should take such disruptive agendas elsewhere:

"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere."

Yes, aspirin costs $1.39 for a bottle of hundreds. Cocaine and meth aren't like Viagra or Prozac that requires billions of dollars of research to identify and produce ... peasants in central American countries (coke), and condo dwellers using hardware store chemicals (meth)make them by the ton all the time. And pot just about grows on trees. Tell me, do you think people would pay you $20 for a little handful of legal weed clippings?

It's about concentrating one's forces. Liberty minded folks whether they are conservatives, libertarians or independents are spread thin out in the 50 states and the Democrats and establishment Republicans outnumber them everywhere. Socialism and the nanny state is gaining ground all across the land. There is strength in numbers. Read the statements where NH folks are glad for the reinforcemnts.

The Project is the only hope for rolling back years of liberalism. Unfortunately it is not possible for the country as a whole. We should be grateful there is still a chance in a couple of states.

...the Free State Project is precisely about invading and taking over.

You see it as invading and taking over. I see it as investing (time, money, resources) and taking back (restoring a model of limited government). For most of these people, deciding to uproot and move to NH requires a great deal of sacrifice. There is nothing illegal or underhanded about what's going on here.

49
posted on 10/01/2003 3:23:17 PM PDT
by sheltonmac
(If having the U.S. enforce U.N. resolutions is not world government, what is?)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.